Q I do not want a specific date. My point is that you knew it before you went to the protectorate; you knew what Himmler was before you went to the protectorate, of course? There is no question about that, is there?
THE TRIBUNAL (MR. JUSTICE BIDDLE): That is all. BY THE TRIBUNAL (GENERAL NIKITCHENKO): yourself openly against the policy of the Hitlerite Government? agreement with the policy of Hitler's Government, either on separate questions or taken as a whole, as well. Is that true? your disagreement with Hitler's policy?
Q In what manner was it, then? I am asking you about your public statements, either in the press or while addressing any meeting?
A No. It was no longer possible to have it appear in the press, or to hold a meeting. It was out of the question. I could only speak to Hitler personally, or, at the beginning, in the cabinet, in protest against this policy. There was no freedom of the press any longer, any more than in Russia. No meeting was possible.
Q I am not asking you about Russia; I am asking you about your expressing your views. In other words, you never expressed them. And in that way, nobody in Germany could know, or did know, about the fact that you were not in agreement with the policy on the part of Hitler's government? but not by articles and not in meetings. Otherwise, I always expressed it clearly.
sonally to Hitler. You mentioned it only to Hitler personally?
A No; I said it to everyone who would listen, but not at public meetings, in speeches, or in articles. I was not able to.
Q And you remained within the government? You were a member of the government in spite of the fact that you were not in agreement with the government's policy; is that so?
Q In order to counteract his policy?
Q Do you know the results of such counteracting?
Q What were the results of your counteracting Hitler's government's policy? were against the joining of Germany, and Austria?
Q The German government joined Austria to Germany; is that so? last moment Hitler did that.
Q You were against the seizing of Czechoslovakia? sidered, as mentioned, you, of course, expressed your opinion against it, did you not?
Q You were against the attack on Poland?
A I repeat, I was not a member of the government. I learned of it only at the last moment.
A Yes, indeed. I wanted it just the opposite; I wanted cooperation with the Soviet Union.
Q And still Germany attacked the Soviet Union?
about your political opposition then and your disagreement with his policy; that is correct, is it not?
A He knew that very well. I resigned in 1938 for that reason.
Q Yes. And you know how Hitler made short work of his political opposition?
considered yourself as being in opposition, nothing happened; that is true, isn't it? sidered yourself to be a member of the opposition, nothing of the kind happened?
Q And couldn't you tell us whether Sir Neville Henderson, in his book, "The Failure of a Mission", expressed the facts concerning you personally correctly or otherwise? Do you consider that Sir Neville Henderson expressed the facts correctly concerning you personally; does he express them correctly? once three or four years ago. I can't remember what he said about me. I heard some excerpts from it here but I can't say what he writes about me. presented by your defense counsel in his document book?
Q Here, now, for instance, is what is expressed in his excerpts; so far as you are concerned is it correctornot? ship in the party? He writes that "Baron von Neurath himself remained in the regime of Hindenburg, and he was not a member of the Nazi Party."
Q And further on he informs us that "he (Neurath) became a member of the Party later."
A I also explained how that happened. In 1937 I receiveda Golden Party Insignia. member of the Nazi Party later, as Sir Neville Henderson states?
Q So this particular part is not correct, then?
A I received the Golden Party Insignia with Hitler's statement that that involved no obligations towards the Party.
Q We heard it in such a way that in Sir Neville Henderson's statements, nothing is true as far as your person is concerned?
A I said I became a member. I can't remember what Sir Neville Henderson wrote about my person. I didn't quite understand your explanation which was given by you to Sir Neville Henderson and later to your own defense counsel. Now, in forwarding Frank's memorandum, in the letter addressed to Lammers, you wrote that you considered this memorandum absolutely correct, Is that true?
A Yes, that is true. I would like to give the reasons.
Q You already explained thereasons before. I just wanted to establish the fact that you really wrote this.
A The reason why I wrote this to Lammers, I did not tell here. The reason why I wrote to Lammers to this effect, was that he was the one who submitted these memoranda to the Fuehrer, and I, and then I had to write to the same effect. BY THE PRESIDENT: lates to the document letter that you wrote on the 31st of August 1940. That is the letter which General Nikitchenko has just referred to; you remember that? agreed with the memorandum which your Secretary of State Frank had drawn up independently of you. He said that "Germanization provides for the changing of the nationality of racially suitable Czechs; and secondly, the expulsion of racially unassimilable Czechs and of the intelligentsia who are enemies of the Reich or special treatment for these and all destructive elements." My question is: What did you understand by "special treatment"? idea of the term "special treatment" that has developed here during the trial. As to this attitude of Frank represented in the report, I did not agree with it at all. I only had the intention of frustrating this whole affair, of sidetracking it.
The content of these reports was only in-
tended in Hitler's language, or in the language of Himmler and others to present this to Hitler to dissuade him from it.
Q Wasn't it misleading to write to Herr Lammers with the view that it should be put forward to Hitler, saying that you fully agreed with the memorandum with which you did not agree?
A Mr. President, as things were, I could not write to Lammers. I didn't intend to carry out what it says. I had to write to Lammers, I agree with it. Afterwards, in personal talk before the session which was brought up here with Frank and Luekner, I reported to Hitler and explained to him -
Q Then your answer is that you don't know what was meant by "special treatment"? You remember when you were called on the 11th of March, 1938, at the time of the Anschlusswith Austria, and you wrote the letter of the 12th of March, 1938, in answer to the memorandum which you received from the British Government through Sir Neville Henderson. You knew Sir Neville Henderson, quite well, didn't you?
Q And in that letter you said this: "It is untrue that the Reich used forceful pressure to bring about this development; especially the assertion which was spread Later by the former chancellor that the German government had presented the Federal President with a conditional ultimatum is pure invention. According to the ultimatum, he had to appoint a proposed candidate as chancellor and form a cabinet conforming to the proposals of the German government, otherwise the invasion of Austria by German troops was held in prospect." And then you go on to say what you allege was the truth of the matter. You know, now, don't you, that your statements in that letter were entirely untrue?
A It didn't come through.
Q Have you heard any part of the question that I was putting to you?
Q It is a pity that you didn't say so earlier. Do youremember the 11th of March 1938 and being called in to represent the Foreign Office, and you have told me just now that you knew Sir Neville Henderson quite well?
March 1938? in that Letter wereuntrue?
A Untrue, yes; they are presented incorrectly. true? later.
Q That is not an answer to my question. I said! What steps did you take to find out whether the statement was correct?
A The statement which Hitler gave me I assumed to be true. I could not investigate it. of what the British government had stated?
A I had no other knowledge of the events. I could only say what I knew.
Q. You had the letter, the protest from the British Government, had you not?
A. Yes.
Q. You knew Sir Neville Henderson perfectly well?
A. Yes.
Q. And you then wrote this letter contradicting the statements which had been made on behalf of the British Government, that is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. And you took no steps to check the facts which had benn stated to you by Hitler? Will you answer that, please?
A. Yes. Your Lordship, how was I to do that? There was no one else who knew about it; only what Hitler had reported to me to tell the Foreign Office. The draft of this note was drawn up by the Foreign Office according to the information which I had received from Hitler. I had no opportunity to clear the matter up.
Q. There were all the other persons who were concerned with the matter when you could have communicated with, but your statement is that you did nothing?
A. I can only repeat that I had no opportunity to attain other information. No one know about it aside from Hitler.
Q. Are you telling the Tribunal that Goering didn't know about it?
A. Perhaps Goering know about it.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. The Defendant can return to the dock.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I ask permission to call the first witness, the former Ministerialdirektor, and head of the political section in the foreign ministry, Dr. Koepke. follows:s BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Eill you state your full name, please?
A. Gerhard Koepke.
Q. Will you repeat the oath after me: speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q. Dr. Koepke, how long have youknown Mr. von Neurath?
A. I have known Mr. von Neurath for over forty years. His career is well known. Therefore, I need only indicate that as Vice Consul in London, the Legation Consul in the Foreign Office, and later when Mr. von Neurath became Minister in 1932, until I left in '35, we worked together. In the meantime, Mr. von Neurath was in Copenhagen, Rome, London, and for sometime at his home, and finally in Prague. We not only occasionally when he was in Berlin, and we kept up a comparatively lively correspondence as old friends. I myself was employed in the Foreign Office during the whole period. From '21 on I was head of the Legal Department, and from 1923 I was Director of the political so-called Western Section, which I directed until I left the service. I resigned voluntarily at the end of 1935.
Q. What do you know about the basic attitude of Mr. von Neurath on domestic and foreign policy on a large scale?
A. Concerning politics, Mr. von Neurath was close to the conservative circles but he was never a member of the Conservative Party. From this basic conservative attitude and also because of his outstanding character traits of loyalty to duty and reliability, he had the confidence of Reich President von Hindenburg, and returned it without interruption until the letter's death. Mr. von Hindenburg esteemed von Neurath as a moderate, reliable dip,omat. Hon of other political parties also had confidence in von Neurath. I shall mention only the later Reichspresident, Ebert, who recalled Neurath to office at one time.
Q. What do you know about von Neurath's appointment as Reich foreign Minister in the summer of '32?
A. The appointment of Mr. von Neurath as Reich Foreign Minister was based on a personal wish of President von Mindenburg. Neurath did not become Foreign Minister within the Papen cabinet, but became Foreign Minister at the special request of Reichspresident von Hindenburg.
ister in the new Hitler government? Neurath did not participate as far as I know. Of course I can only rely on my memory. In the decisive days he was sick with a heart disease, but he remained Foreign Minister again at the special wish of Mr. von Hindenburg.
Q Can you tell us anything about the relationship of Mr. von Neurath with Hitler? immediate observation I can not testify anything on this subject. I was never present at conferences of von Neurath with Hitler. I never had any official conversation with Hitler myself. But, according to Neurath's own description and according to the information which I received from other important personalities in the course of time, I had the impression that, especially in the first years, Hitler treated Mr. von Neurath carefully and politely. To what extent this was due to consideration of the Reichspresident, whose regard for von Neurath was of course known to Hitler, I can not say. In any case, Neurath was never actually in the confidence of Hitler and was not in the close circle around Hitler, the ranks of the Party. After the death of President von Hindenburg, von Neurath remained because he had promised the Reichspresident to do so. In the following time also, Mr. von Neurath repeatedly exerted his moderate and calming influence on the Party, or attempted to do so; but I knew that when disappointments and differences of opinion occurred repeatedly, Mr. von Neurath attempted to separate from Hitler. I can recall two occasions on which he offered his resignation. He showed me one of these resignations which was in writing. It must have been after the beginning of '36. At that time I had already resigned and I visited Mr. von Neurath in a purely private capacity.
Q Can you give us briefly a picture of the attitude of Mr. von Neurath toward the National Socialist Party ?
A Mr. von Neurath was waiting to see what would come of the party at first. I did not know any of these men personally, Mr. von Neurath was convinced that on the basis of his many years of experience as an old diplomat and because of his confidential position with the Reich President, he would be successful in exerting moderate influence on behalf of his policy, which was for understanding. He referred to the experience which he had had in Rome with Facism. He occasionally said that such revolutionary elements should be allowed to develop quietly, that these hotheads would come to their senses if they were given time and opportunity to gather experience themselves in a responsible position. of Reich Chancellor Bruening, and until his death he protected him against repeated attempts of the Party to get rid of him. at the time. When State Secretary Buelow died suddenly, Neurath brought it about that Hitler personally participated in the funeral at the Kaiser Wilhelm Gedaechnis Kirche. The old officials of the Foreign Office saw in that a good sign for the strong position of our minister toward the Party. This event, which is quite beside the point , was exactly ten years ago today. of the first co-workers of Mr. von Neurath, and surely you can say what the basic tendencies of Mr. von Neurath's foreign policy were.
A Neurath's political attitude on the whole was, according to his full character and his years of experience in politics, based on waiting, negotiating. Solutions by violence did not suit von Neurath's temperament. Neurath was not a gambler or fighter by nature. occurred during the period in which you worked under Mr. von Neurath and were head of the political section.
of Nations. Now, I should like to ask you whether this step of Germany's, leaving the conference and the League of Nations, indicated any aggressive or belligerent tendencies for the moment or for the future.
A No. As far as the picture of the events mentioned by defense counsel was clear to us, it was as follows : As to warlike plans or preparations for war, no one of us in the Foreign Office thought of it. It was only done to proclaim as impressively as possible that Germany would no longer allow herself to be considered a nation without the same rights as other people. intention, either for the moment or for the future.
Q In the next few years, in 1935, Germany's defense sovereignty was repealed, and a year later, the demilitarized Rhineland zone was remilitarized. I should like to read you one sentence from the affidavit of the former minister and interpreter Schmidt.
He says, in regard to the eventsin the spring of '35:
"The conclusion of a pact of mutual assistance between France and Russia on the 2nd of May 1935 followed the proclamation of the foundation of the German air force and the introduction of general military service in March 1935." these matters which led to the repeal of the defense sovereignty in 1935 and to the remilitarization of the Rhineland.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Luedinghausen, we have had the historical development of these matters over and over again. Surely we don't want it from this witness.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Only very briefly, only the dates, Mr. President; no explanations. I should like to emphasize once more -
THE PRESIDENT:(Interposing) The Tribunal have the dates in their minds. We really have had these dates in our minds for some months.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Very well. If the Court believes that it is not necessary, I must, of course, dispense with it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can put any question you really want to put about it, but you said, "Will you give us the historical developments from the 2nd of May 1935." We have hear that over and over again.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Yes, Mr. President. I was only interested in the following, the affidavit of Mr. Schmidt which I have just quoted.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the question, whatever you want to ask about this affidavit.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Very well. I shall formulate the question as fellows: BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q I have just read this sentence by Mr. Schmidt, that the conclusion of the Russian-French Pact of May 2, 1935 was the result of the restoration of military sovereignty. Is that true, ox what was the case? as they happened, in chronological order. The conclusion of the FrenchRussian Pact was on he 2nd of May 1935. The restoration of military sovereignty was in March 1935. However, the negotiations for this treaty of assistance go much farther back, and I should like to recall the stage in which these negotiations were before the restoration of military sovereignty.
It is shown clearly in the report of the French Military Committee. It speaks of a close entente of the two states. That was on the 23rd of November 1934.
Q. Now I come to another question. Will you please tell us whether you know the opinions of von Neurath in the Austrian question at your time?
A. I know Mr. von Neurath's point of view on the Austrian question. I knew it much longer than from our working together while he was minister. interested in the problem and I recall having a conversation with him even when we were vice-consuls. His attitude and intentions had always been to make the relationship between Germany and Austria a closer one on on economic basis, especially in the interests of Austria and to secure a joint policy politically but not to touch the independence of Austria. From the experience which we in the Foreign Office had several years before he became minister with the Customs Union, which was intended only in an economic sense, and the fact that this attempt was generally evaluated as a political Anschluss warned everyone who should decide to touch this hot iron again. Therefore, Neurath, during his period office, insofar as he discussed it with me and worked on this problem, he thought along the same lines about it. was probably after I left office. However, Hitler originally assured Neurath of a moderate attitude, as was shown in the pact with Mussolini in Venice in the summer of 1934. Especially interesting, however, are the remarks which Hitler made on the Anschluss problem to Sir John Simon at the negotiations in Berlin in March 1935. At that time Hitler told the English statesman about as follows: his assurances that he could not want to increase our economic cares by adding another field of economic care. Germany did not want to interfere in this country. He knew especially that any interference in Austrian affairs, even carrying out a wish of theAustria people themselves for Anschluss, would not be legalized. That was Hitler's opinion at that time. condemned the attempts which was to be seen in Party circles to give direct support to theAustrian National Socialists. During my time Neurath did everything he could to keep the Foreign Office out of the internal political struggle in Austria.
Q. Another question. Up to the time of your resignation at the beginning of 1936, was there ever any mention in the Foreign Office of attacking Czechoslovakia or not observing the treaties with Czechoslovakia?
A. Never, neither the one nor the other. Our economic and political relations with Czechoslovakia were, as long as I was in service, very good. There was no occasion, no reason to change them at all.
Q. And now my last question. Can you tell us anything about Mr. von Neurath's attitude toward the race question?
A. On this question Neurath was absolutely opposed to the party attitude, In that connection I should like to recall an experience about which Neurath told me personally. Minister Guertner -
Q Justice Minister?
A. Yes, excuse me, I meant Reich Justice Minister Guertner -- come to him and was quite excited. He told con Neurath that he, Guertner, had in vain warned Hitler against proclaiming all these laws. He asked Neurath urgently as Foreign Minister to point out the enormous dangers which this madness could bring about in other countries. Neurath told me that he immediately did so; that all his efforts were in vain.
Neurath's personal attitude on the Jewish problem was, according to his whole kind personality and religious attitude, to reach an agreement, and understanding. From many examples I should like to refer only to one that is as follows: at the embassy was one of the closest friends of the Neurath family. When he had to leave London during the World War and was homeless and without employment Neurath immediately took active steps to help his old friend. though that brought him under attack from the Party circles and that was not always easy.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other member of the defendants's counsel want to ask any question?
Do the Prosecution wish to ask any questions?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, the Tribunal will, of course, not consider that the Prosecution are accepting every statement of the witness but I do not think that it would be a useful appropriation of time to crossexamine him. Therefore I shall ask no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment Sir David. defendants' counsel to discuss the questions of supplementary applications for witnesses and documents at two o'clock?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Certainly, my Lord, it would be very convenient to me. I do not think there are many serious matters about which there will be serious dispute.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I thought there were not. Very well, we will do that then.
Dr. von Luedinghausen, call your next witness and then we can have him sworn before the adjournment.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN: May I ask Dr. Diekhoff, successor of Dr. Koepke, be called to the stand.
HANS HEINRICH DIEKHOFF; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name please?
A. Hans Heinrich Diekhoff.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me? truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
THE TRIBUNAL : Now the Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 26 June 1946)
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship please, My Lord, the first application is on behalf of the defendant von Neurath with regard to M. Francois Poncet. That has been dealt with. That is covered.
Then, My Lord, the next is an application from Dr. Marx on behalf of the defendant Streicher to put in an affidavit by the publisher, Herr Gassner of the "Stuermer". My Lord, the published is intended to deal with the question of the rise and the circulation of the "Steurmer" during the years 1933 to 1935. The Prosecution have already submitted to the Tribunal that they do not think that that is relevant when an application was made to call Herr Gassner as a witness. The Prosecution still take the same position. My Lord, it is for an affidavit, and we leave to the Tribunal as to whether they would like the affidavit, but the Prosecution fail to see the relevance of that evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Would Dr. Marx like to say saything about that now?
DR. MARX (Counsel for defendant Streicher): Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with defendant Streicher. He tells me that the witness whom I have proposed to call, Herr Gassner, of whom an affidavit had been proposed, would be in a position only to speak about the period beginning with the year 1941 and with reference to the publication figures of the "Stuermer". Naturally, that is of no interest whatever to the defense. I shall, therefore, refrain from using the affidavit and rely on what the witness Heimer has said in that respect, and therefore it would probably not be at all necessary to adhere to the affidavit.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, the next application is by Dr. Kranzbuehler on behalf of the defendant Doenitz for further consideration and admission of the affidavit of the former fleet judge, Jekyl, by reason of the course of the cross examination. do not object to the application at this time but reserve the right, when Dr. Kranzbuehler makes the use that he desires of the affidavit, that we may consider whether we shall then object.